Compulsory Membership?

[Mike Gunn]

I have no knowledge of what the NCCU gets up to! (I was writing on the basis of my experience of the SCCU).

[David Robertson]

I have no knowledge of what the NCCU gets up to!

That makes two of us. But you're Chair of ECF Council. Are you telling me that knowing what's going on is optional in that role?

[E Michael White]

(2) There was no "national grading list", as we have now. That was reserved for players who were over 175. Instead, each Union had a grading list. If I played in the Birmingham League only, I'd only find my existence in the printed copy of the MCCU Grading List.

You do make some stuff up. The National Grading List was for 209 and above ie 3a. The union lists were for 208 and below ie 3b.

[Alex Holowczak]

(2) There was no "national grading list", as we have now. That was reserved for players who were over 175. Instead, each Union had a grading list. If I played in the Birmingham League only, I'd only find my existence in the printed copy of the MCCU Grading List.

You do make some stuff up. The National Grading List was for 209 and above ie 3a. The union lists were for 208 and below ie 3b.

It was 175 according to the then Manager for Grading. I'm only passing on what he told me...

[Roger de Coverly]

The National Grading List was for 209 and above ie 3a. The union lists were for 208 and below ie 3b.

Particularly in the 1970s, the BCF and the magazines would sometimes publish 175 and above, referred to as a "combined" Union List. But the Unions took responsibility for most of the grading work. National grading from the mid eighties onwards gave work to the BCF Office in Hastings to run it all.

The SCCU had managed to beg or borrow some computer time and much of the consolidation work to produce the published local SCCU list had been computerised since the seventies. Then, perhaps as now, the SCCU list would contain half the country.

[Mick Norris]

A Cheshire viewpoint would be.
The ECF is mostly irrelevant to the chess we play.
The NCCU is totally irrelevant.

Maybe you should join the MCCU

To be fair its hard to imagine the MCCU being any more relevant than the NCCU

Bob

As Ian says, if you wanted to play county chess, the MCCU has active competitions for Open, Minor, U160, U140, U120, plus a couple of teams playing at U100 and U180

Alternatively, you could play G Man in a friendly at Open and/or U160 if you wished without changing Unions

Or, the Chester League could play against the Manchester League in a friendly if you wish - we normally play Morecambe annually, and have played both Bradford and Sheffield in the last few years

[Mike Gunn]

>>>Are you telling me that knowing what's going on is optional in that role?<<<

No.

[Adam Raoof]

"Maybe it's just the fact that several key SCCU personnel are generally very active and well informed."

For example, the Middlesex representative!

To be fair, everyone listed on the site is pretty active, but what makes a small difference is that they are often active nationally too.

I do see the point that is being made: why do we need counties, unions, or in fact anything at all apart from chess clubs, tournaments and the ECF?

My feeling is that any organisation that relies on volunteers so much is in need of a network of regional organisations, for instance most charities have fundraising broken down by region. Whether they are made less relevant by the advent of membership, I don't know. I suspect we will still need them. Put aside the terminology, an organisation that is prepared to run leagues, matches and collect and hand over memberships to the ECF in a timely fashion might be useful.

[Andrew Wainwright]

Or, the Chester League could play against the Manchester League in a friendly if you wish - we normally play Morecambe annually, and have played both Bradford and Sheffield in the last few years

The Manchester vs Bradford match was a great event. We hosted it at the Idle WMC in Bradford. Manchester brought a very competitive 20 board team and were only just pipped to victory by the home team with a score of 10.5-9.5 I believe.

It was also a great opportunity for some of us Yorkshire folk to meet our Manchester neighbours and discuss all this historic nonesense. I'm 28yrs old and so I wasn't even born when this all happened.

I find it ridiculous that Manchester are not part of the NCCU, I would fully sort their membership, I would be more than willing to canvass support in Yorkshire and I would be utterly opposed to Lancashire being able to exercise a veto just because they still hold a grudge. If the only way to make this happen is for the other northern counties to leave the NCCU, form a new union, and then invite Lancashire to join us when they realise they have no one left to play, then so be it.

It's time that this small minority of Lancashire pensioners realise that they can not stop progress and that the current generation of chess players would rather get on with playing chess than arguing about borders.

Viva la revolution!!!

[Sean Hewitt]

Or, the Chester League could play against the Manchester League in a friendly if you wish - we normally play Morecambe annually, and have played both Bradford and Sheffield in the last few years

The Manchester vs Bradford match was a great event. We hosted it at the Idle WMC in Bradford. Manchester brought a very competitive 20 board team and were only just pipped to victory by the home team with a score of 10.5-9.5 I believe.

It was also a great opportunity for some of us Yorkshire folk to meet our Manchester neighbours and discuss all this historic nonesense. I'm 28yrs old and so I wasn't even born when this all happened.

I find it ridiculous that Manchester are not part of the NCCU, I would fully sort their membership, I would be more than willing to canvass support in Yorkshire and I would be utterly opposed to Lancashire being able to exercise a veto just because they still hold a grudge. If the only way to make this happen is for the other northern counties to leave the NCCU, form a new union, and then invite Lancashire to join us when they realise they have no one left to play, then so be it.

It's time that this small minority of Lancashire pensioners realise that they can not stop progress and that the current generation of chess players would rather get on with playing chess than arguing about borders.

Viva la revolution!!!

Hear hear.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's time that this small minority of Lancashire pensioners realise that they can not stop progress and that the current generation of chess players would rather get on with playing chess than arguing about borders.

I would have said the same in 1975 at the age of 24. The problem is that said pensioners, not that they were then, seem to have unlimited pockets to fund legal action over what is basically and always has been a rather petty dispute. The suggestion that there's something in a will to continue the financing of the dispute is beyond parody.

The hypothesis would be that setting up an NCCU version 2 would lead to mass production of solicitor's letters both to the counties involved, the ECF and perhaps individuals on the ECF Council if they approved the scheme.

[Andrew Wainwright]

Roger - Cause of Action?

[Adam Raoof]

If a congress accepts a non-member who doesn’t want games graded, are they going to turn players away? Congresses are already under pressure from falling numbers.

My bold - what evidence is there for this trend, especially in the NCCU?

[Ernie Lazenby]

I am of the opinion that the needs of players are best served with a National organisation run by well meaning and reasonably competent volunteers. The NCCU has well meaning well intentioned volunteers at its core but the reality is that chess played within the counties can function well without the NCCU and I know from my time in office that the majority of the players are not interested in the NCCU or indeed the politics of the ECF. Indeed getting them to turn out in any numbers to a meeting to discusss local matters is a trial.
Its that apathy that results in those who hold positions doing what they think is correct if theres no formal structure in place to dictate otherwise.

I know that if ECF/NCCU matters were not discussed at local meetings in my area very few, if, any would raise an eyebrow unless it directly affects how much they have to pay.(and that is the bottom line)

The ECF membership scheme seems okay to me however I would like to have seen one member one vote introduced. I know our rep William will accurately convey his members views, should they offer any, and indeed vote as directed although in previous years and decades no such mandate as been sought from our members; one could reasonably argue such failure was in light of the knowledge that most members were not interested.

All that said, if the ECF fails to improve and implodes then the NCCU could do a good job running Northern chess and I am sure it would. There is another consideration; local chess would function if there was no ECF or NCCU, a league would function with its local grader and for the vast majority of players that is sufficient. It is the small number who play congress's or operate at higher levels that need a national/regional structure.

I am retireing from chess due to health issues however I care about the game and wish that the various factions involved in endless debates could put aside personal wishes and see the bigger picture but thats never going to happen so long as we have people around who harbour grievances for years as some elements in Lancashire seem to be doing.

BTW Giddiness will be happy because no doubt there will be spelling mistakes due to my eyesight and missing glasses.

[Sean Hewitt]

The hypothesis would be that setting up an NCCU version 2 would lead to mass production of solicitor's letters both to the counties involved, the ECF and perhaps individuals on the ECF Council if they approved the scheme.

If the pensioners have got something into the NCCU constitution that prevents Gtr Manchester from joining by giving Lancs a veto (and I'm not convinced that they have) that's one thing ; but that does not stop everyone else from leaving and setting up another Union. There is nothing to prohibit that at all.

You're right that the pensioners could fire off a load of solicitors letters but so what? It would be bluster without any prospect of a successful action.

People like this are bullies and need to be treated as such. The best way is normally to take them on.